The "Quote" button is not working, so here is a quote from ICA:
Quote:
|
OBW, probably, you have more information, but I have never heard anything about the split from the beginning.
|
I reread my post and there is clearly something missing there. I was trying to say that the two groups, which had been at least somewhat one for some centuries, were jointly the result of a progression from the beginning. Neither was the owner of legacy or a right to claim to be the only true, original church.
Your comments about reading of the early fathers in Latin is irrelevant. Naming early Popes is irrelevant. For both it is a function of the tradition of how you claim that your group precedes and is superior to others.
But organizations and traditions are not the proof of legitimacy. Especially not of superior legitimacy. Unlike the LCM, I do not despise tradition. But it is only of value to the extent that it is useful in the formation of the Christian life. It has no value as a proof of superiority.
From my perspective, the primary cause of division today is not that there are differences of opinion on doctrines and practices. It is not even that most think theirs is superior to all others. If we didn't think our doctrines and practices were right, we would change them. It is the dismissal of others and contention that all must go our way that is the cause of division.
Note that of the problems represented in the church letters in Revelation 2 and 3, all seven of the recipients were churches. None were collections of mooing cows. None were the Whore of Babylon. None were cited as superior. But I do note that the first one mentioned, the one that had such a strong "first love," had lost that spark. Claims of being first is he sure way to find yourself last. We should all simply serve the part of the universal body of Christ that comes to meet with us in the best way we know how.